You aren't kidding. Bloomberg should have left this one on the cutting room floor. I spent years as a mechanic and I never once sold work that wasn't needed, even if it would serve my needs above and beyond the customers who I worked for.

Goldman and other investment banks do perform an important role in our economy, and Goldman bankers -- most of them, at least -- can hold their heads up high. But it is not charity work. Goldman’s clients are mostly very well-off. Smith’s lament that the bank no longer serves their needs above and beyond its own does not tug at our heartstrings.

As Mayor of NYC, I hope Michael Bloomberg understands that he is there to serve NY City's needs above his own.

Goldman’s clients are mostly very well-off. Smith’s lament that the bank no longer serves their needs above and beyond its own does not tug at our heartstrings.

Let me see if I understand the logic here: Goldman's clients are wealthy, therefore, it's normal to deal with them with a total disregard for their interests? Furthermore, Goldman's direct counterparts are rarely the ones who foot the bill for Goldman's actions -- it is corporate shareholders, pension and mutual fund investors, etc

There is so much bad logic in that editorial, one hardly knows where to begin in rebutting it.

Dude. When people have $1 billion or more, do you think they feel they need to listen to their inferiors' email comments? This editorial came straight from the top, from Mike Bloomberg, who eats at the same restaurants as Lloyd Blankfein, educates his kids at the same schools, borrows money from the same banks, etc.

The USA has made the error of enfranchising and entitling these folks with far too much money - what Warren Buffett calls 'claim checks on others' future labor.' Laws do not apply to them. Clients must keep using them and must keep being gouged by them because that is the cost of doing business. Even Cramer, who was quite critical of the way Goldman opened his company's IPO in 1999 (see "Confessions of a Street Addict"), came out with an eloquent defense of Goldman yesterday. That is because he knows what side of the bread his butter is on.

The Goldman bankers and the others in their echelon have billions in personal wealth and control trillions of other people's money. Now that they have that money, they are effectively royalty. That means they don't have to care about what other people think of them. Wake up!

Dude. When people have $1 billion or more, do you think they feel they need to listen to their inferiors' email comments? This editorial came straight from the top, from Mike Bloomberg, who eats at the same restaurants as Lloyd Blankfein, educates his kids at the same schools, borrows money from the same banks, etc.

Take your tin foil hat off. It's been years since Mike Bloomberg hasn't been involved with the running of his company. He certainly doesn't waste his time managing the production of editorials that will only hurth his company's reputation.

The Goldman bankers and the others in their echelon have billions in personal wealth

Get you facts straight. Mike Bloomberg is much, much wealthier than any Goldman banker, even CEO Lloyd Blankfein, whose net worth is substantially less than $1 billion.

Apparently the concept of professionalism eludes the author of the Bloomberg editorial. Of course we are discussing a business but there are people that do their jobs as professionals.

Just a little history. It was GS that had to go begging Buffett for cash because they engaged in excessive risk taking to line their pockets. Then when they saw the chance at grabbing billions of tax free money they went for it by asking to be fast tracked as a bank holding company. Once they got their fingers on the cash they churned it on their own proprietary platform in order to award themselves even more bonuses. And finally when they saw that the candy store was now closing and they had to comply with Dodd-Frank they tried to weasel out of being classified as a bank holding company.

You know, I did an estate intake for a law firm I do of counsel work for today. The client had the choice of paying the law firm a percentage of the total estate or an hourly fee. I advised the client to take the hourly fee option because it would wind up being way less than going percentage. That was keeping the client's interest as paramount importance.

I also, during my foolish days, did divorce law. I contacted my adversary and made a proposal that was more or less in line with court findings. My adversary told me tough, my client deserved nothing and he would litigate. In the end after extensive legal proceedings and trial my client was awarded about $10,000 less than was initially asked. The cost, however, was about $35,000 in legal fees that my adversary's client wound up paying. My last conversation with opposing counsel was to thank him for making me money but that he did a total disservice to his client.

I don't want to hear how it is all about putting money in the pockets of the professionals. It is all about representing one's client in THEIR best interest. Case closed, end of discussion.